GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

February 2001 REGULATORY 

MANAGEMENT

Communication About 

Technology-Based 

Innovations Can Be 

Improved

GAO-01-232

Page 1 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Letr

February 12, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Ranking Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

During the past several years, information technology (IT) has played an 

increasingly important role in how federal agencies interact with the public 

and accomplish their missions. Sometimes referred to as “electronic 

government” or “E-gov,” the use of IT has already changed how public 

policy is developed and administered in a variety of areas and has the 

potential to introduce even more changes in the future. One area of public 

policy that is beginning to feel the effects of IT is regulatory management, 

which includes such interrelated processes as rulemaking, compliance 

assistance, information collection and dissemination, and regulatory 

enforcement. The use of IT in regulatory management can reduce 

regulatory burden; improve the transparency of regulatory processes; and, 

ultimately, facilitate the accomplishment of regulatory objectives. 

Last year, we reported on innovative uses of IT to facilitate public 

participation in federal rulemaking.1

 This report responds to your request 

that we examine the use of IT in other aspects of regulatory management. 

Specifically, we agreed to identify (1) examples of how federal agencies are 

innovatively using IT, either individually or in collaboration with other 

agencies or levels of government, to facilitate regulatory management; (2) 

examples of how state regulatory agencies are innovatively using IT to 

facilitate regulatory management; (3) IT applications that representatives 

of nongovernmental organizations believe could be more widely used by 

1

Federal Rulemaking: Agencies’ Use of Information Technology to Facilitate Public 

Participation (GAO/GGD-00-135R, June 30, 2000).
Page 2 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

federal regulatory agencies; and (4) what officials and staff in federal and 

state regulatory agencies and nongovernmental organizations believe are 

the key factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption and diffusion of 

innovative IT applications in regulatory management. The parties relevant 

to each of these objectives (i.e., federal or state agencies and 

nongovernmental organizations) identified which applications they 

considered “innovative.”

Results in Brief All of the federal agencies that we examined were using some form of IT to 

improve regulatory management and to meet legislative and executive 

branch mandates in this area. The IT-based applications that officials and 

staff in federal regulatory agencies and others identified as innovative 

covered all of the dimensions of regulatory management that we examined, 

and most applications covered more than one dimension. Most of the 

applications involved using IT to improve traditional regulatory 

management approaches within their agencies. However, other 

applications were more interactive in nature and appeared to change the 

nature of the relationship between regulatory agencies and the relevant 

public. For example, the Department of Labor has a system of electronic 

“advisors” imitating the interaction that an individual might have with an 

employment law expert. The advisors allow users to obtain tailored 

compliance assistance information and, in some cases, complete required 

reports. A few of the applications attempted to address issues involving 

interagency or intergovernmental coordination. The Environmental 

Protection Agency, for example, is working with partners in state 

government and the Environmental Council of the States to develop a 

national environmental information exchange network to deliver accurate, 

reliable data to the public, government officials, and industry and 

environmental groups and to reduce the burden of reporting environmental 

data. 

The IT-based applications that state government organizations identified as 

innovative, like their federal counterparts, represented the range of 

regulatory management functions. Several of the state innovations were 

interactive systems that allowed regulated entities to identify their 

regulatory responsibilities and complete related transactions. For example, 

the Texas Railroad Commission has an electronic compliance and approval 

process that allows users to obtain oil or gas well permits on-line, complete 

and file the required forms, and pay any associated fees. Other state 

government applications were less interactive and involved using IT to 

improve traditional management approaches. 
Page 3 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Representatives from nongovernmental organizations who participated in 

our review recognized and supported federal regulatory agencies’ current 

efforts to use IT to improve their regulatory management processes. 

However, the representatives also said that federal agencies could improve 

their performance in this area. Specifically, they suggested that agencies 

improve both the content and access to on-line information, more broadly 

and consistently use some existing applications, and adopt some new 

applications. The representatives also expressed concern that IT-based 

applications in regulatory management could (1) make individuals and 

businesses more vulnerable to scrutiny and federal enforcement actions 

and (2) disadvantage those individuals and businesses with limited 

technical resources.

Federal and state agency officials and representatives of nongovernmental 

organizations identified several factors that they believed affected the 

adoption and diffusion of IT-based approaches in regulatory management. 

Those factors were (1) top-level leadership commitment/support, (2) 

adequate financial resources and human capital (given competing 

priorities), (3) legislative and executive branch IT initiatives, (4) internal 

and external partnerships with critical stakeholders, (5) reengineering of 

existing business processes, and (6) development of a communication 

infrastructure. In relation to the last fator, federal regulatory officials said 

they were sometimes unaware of how other agencies (and, in some cases, 

other parts of their own agencies) were using IT to improve regulatory 

management.

Increased use of IT in regulatory management has the potential to yield 

significant benefits, from improving the quality and quantity of public 

participation in rulemaking to reducing burden on regulated entities. As 

agencies learn more about regulatory innovations, they are likely to use 

those applications in their own agencies and avoid “reinventing the wheel” 

when developing their own applications. Therefore, we are recommending 

certain actions that could facilitate innovation, avoid duplication of effort, 

and potentially result in a broader and more consistent approach across 

federal agencies. 

Background Several legislative initiatives enacted during the past decade have 

emphasized the potential of IT to improve the federal government’s 

performance. For example, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

“promote the use of information technology to improve the productivity, 
Page 4 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

efficiency, and effectiveness of Federal programs, including through 

dissemination of public information and the reduction of information 

collection burdens on the public.” The Information Technology 

Management Reform Act of 1996 (known as the Clinger-Cohen Act) also 

requires the OMB Director to “promote and be responsible for improving 

the acquisition, use, and disposal of information technology by the Federal 

Government to improve the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of 

Federal programs, including through dissemination of public information 

and the reduction of information collection burdens on the public.” 

Additionally, the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) requires 

the OMB Director to ensure that federal agencies “provide for the option of 

electronic maintenance, submission, or disclosure of information, when 

practicable as a substitute for paper” by October 2003.2

 GPEA’s full 

implementation will give individuals and organizations the option to submit 

information or transact business with agencies electronically. 

Executive branch initiatives have also encouraged the use of IT in the 

federal government. For example, in September 1993, the National 

Performance Review (later the National Partnership for Reinventing 

Government) announced a set of recommendations that were intended to 

improve government by reengineering through the use of information 

technology. Those recommendations included the development of 

integrated electronic access to government information and service; the 

creation of a national environmental data index; and the use of IT and other 

techniques “to increase opportunities for early, frequent, and interactive 

public participation during the rulemaking process and to increase 

program evaluation efforts.” In July 1996, President Clinton issued 

Executive Order 13011 on “Federal Information Technology,” which, 

among other things, established a Chief Information Officers Council (CIO 

Council) as the principle interagency forum to improve agency information 

resource management and to “share experiences, ideas, and promising 

practices.” A December 17, 1999, presidential memorandum on electronic 

government noted that “as public awareness and Internet usage increase, 

the demand for online Government interaction and simplified, standardized 

ways to access Government information and services becomes increasingly 

important” and directed federal agencies to take steps to address that 

growing demand. Additionally, this directive called for the establishment of 

a “one stop” gateway to government information available on the Internet. 

2

Electronic Government: Government Paperwork Elimination Act Presents Challenges for 

Agencies (GAO/AIMD-00-282, Sept. 15, 2000). 
Page 5 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

The federal government has taken some steps to establish electronic 

gateways that provide one-stop access to information from a variety of 

agencies, including regulatory agencies. For example, the “FirstGov” Web 

site (www.firstgov.gov), which was launched on September 22, 2000, 

provides links to all on-line federal resources—from applying for student 

loans to tracking Social Security benefits. Also, the U.S. Business Advisor 

site (www.business.gov) provides businesses with one-stop access to 

federal information on such topics as taxes, international trade, financial 

assistance, and laws and regulations. The laws and regulations link allows 

users to connect with the Federal Register, the United States Code, and 

compilations of laws and regulations affecting small businesses. The U.S. 

Business Advisor site was created by the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), the National Performance Review, and an interagency task force 

and is maintained and funded by SBA.

In our report issued last year, we identified a number of examples of how 

federal agencies were using IT to facilitate public participation in 

rulemaking.3

 Although all of the departments and agencies we contacted 

were developing some type of IT-based participation vehicles, officials and 

staff in those agencies questioned the need for standardization of those 

practices across agencies. They said that agencies need to be able to design 

their procedures to fit their particular circumstances, and that 

standardization would require scarce agency resources. However, agency 

officials and staff were supportive of efforts to better coordinate the use of 

those participation mechanisms to avoid each agency’s reinventing the 

wheel.

OMB’s Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs

OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), which was 

created by the PRA of 1980, is responsible for providing guidance and 

oversight for both IT and regulatory issues. The OIRA Administrator sits on 

the CIO Council, which is chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for 

Management. Executive Order 12866 identifies OIRA as “the repository of 

expertise concerning regulatory issues” and makes the office responsible 

for coordinating agencies’ regulatory missions. The executive order also 

established a Regulatory Working Group that is chaired by the OIRA 

Administrator and is comprised of representatives of the heads of each 

agency with significant domestic regulatory responsibilities. The order also 

says that the Regulatory Working Group “shall serve as a forum to assist 

3

GAO/GGD-00-135R.
Page 6 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

agencies in identifying and analyzing important regulatory issues,” 

including “the development of innovative regulatory techniques.” 

OIRA has taken some steps to encourage the use of IT specifically to 

improve regulatory management in federal agencies. For example, in April 

2000, the OIRA Administrator launched an initiative focusing on using IT to 

improve the quality of the information that the government collects, while 

minimizing the burden. The initiative began with a public forum that 

featured senior officials from a number of federal regulatory agencies 

presenting information on their agencies’ initiatives, followed by a series of 

roundtable discussions. Additionally, OIRA and OMB have provided 

guidance to agencies on a variety of information policy issues, including 

the implementation of GPEA, privacy, and data exchanges with the states. 

The guidance applies to regulatory management as well as other agency 

functions.

Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

The objectives of our review were to identify (1) examples of how federal 

agencies are using IT innovatively, either individually or in collaboration 

with other agencies or levels of government, to facilitate regulatory 

management; (2) examples of how state regulatory agencies are using IT 

innovatively to facilitate regulatory management; (3) IT applications that 

representatives of nongovernmental organizations believe could be more 

widely used by federal regulatory agencies; and (4) what officials and staff 

in federal and state regulatory agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations believe are the key factors that facilitate or hinder the 

adoption and diffusion of IT applications in regulatory management.

We focused our efforts regarding the first objective on the Departments of 

Agriculture (USDA); Labor (DOL); Health and Human Services (HHS); and 

Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We 

selected these agencies because they are primarily responsible for federal 

health, safety, and environmental regulations that have been the target of 

reform initiatives. In each agency, we identified the IT and regulatory 

management officials and staff to interview, either through our designated 

liaisons or through publications that featured relevant IT applications, 

including the agencies’ Web sites and agency documents. We asked each of 

these officials and staff to identify IT-based regulatory management 

applications that they considered innovative. We did not attempt to define 

the word “innovative” but made it clear that the application should not 

simply be that the agency had a page on the Web. We also obtained 

information on the agencies’ innovative or “best practice” uses of IT in 
Page 7 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

regulatory management from individuals and groups focusing on regulatory 

reform, including the Regulatory Working Group, the Council for 

Excellence in Government, and academics. 

In each agency, we asked a series of structured questions that were keyed 

to our reporting objectives. For each of the federal IT-based regulatory 

management applications that the agencies or others identified, we 

conducted a structured, follow-up interview that was designed to obtain 

more detailed information from relevant agency officials. Specifically, we 

asked, among other things, for a detailed description of the innovation and 

for information on the regulatory purpose(s), status, scope, and results of 

the IT-based application. Additionally, we asked about lessons learned, 

including obstacles and facilitators to development. We also reviewed 

information on the innovations on agencies’ Web sites and other relevant 

documents.

In some cases, the innovations we identified were primarily located in one 

part of the agency. For example, in HHS, the innovations identified for this 

study were primarily in the Department’s Food and Drug Administration 

(FDA).4

 Additionally, in some instances, we selected certain innovations for 

presentation in this report from a longer list of suggestions that was 

provided by the agency. For example, FDA officials provided a list of more 

than a dozen applications that they considered innovative. Working with 

FDA officials, we selected applications for inclusion in this report that 

represented different types of functions.

For the second objective, we interviewed officials from organizations 

representing state governments (e.g., the National Governors Association 

and the Environmental Council of the States) to identify promising 

regulatory IT applications at the state level. Again, we allowed these 

organizations to define the word innovative. We also identified state IT 

applications in the regulatory arena that other organizations (e.g., the 

Council for Excellence in Government and the National Association of 

State Information Resource Executives) or publications identified as 

examples of best practices. For each of the identified state IT-based 

applications, we talked to officials or staff in the state agencies involved in 

the development and/or implementation of the application and reviewed 

information on the agencies’ Web sites.

4

In GAO/GGD-00-135R, we identified innovative uses of IT to facilitate public participation 

in federal rulemaking in other parts of HHS.
Page 8 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

For the third objective, we interviewed representatives of business 

associations, consumer advocacy groups, and academic centers that deal 

with regulatory reform issues. Although we recognize that there are 

numerous organizations that are interested in regulatory issues, we 

judgmentally selected these nongovernmental organizations to contact 

because they have been actively involved in recent regulatory reform 

initiatives and represent alternative perspectives on regulatory reform. We 

contacted the following organizations: the National Federation of 

Independent Businesses, the National Association of Manufacturers, the 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Hospital Association, the 

Natural Resources Defense Council, Public Citizen, OMB Watch, 

Information Renaissance, the American Bar Association, the Heritage 

Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Mercatus Center of George 

Mason University, American University’s Washington College of Law, and 

Washington University’s Center for the Study of American Business. Some 

of these organizations provided extensive information, while others gave 

us more limited answers to our questions. We also reviewed available Web 

sites for the organizations and looked at relevant publications discussing IT 

applications that may have potential for improving federal regulatory 

management. 

For the fourth objective, we asked all of the individuals that we interviewed 

what they viewed as the key factors that facilitate or hinder the adoption 

and diffusion of IT applications in regulatory management.

Our review was intended to provide examples of innovative IT-based 

applications in regulatory management and should not be viewed as a 

compendium of all such applications, even within the federal agencies and 

states that are the focus of this report. Also, the suggestions offered by 

representatives of the nongovernmental organizations in relation to the 

third objective are not intended to be comprehensive of all possible 

suggestions. We did not attempt to validate federal or state agency officials’ 

views or data regarding the performance of the innovations that they 

identified.

We conducted our work between June 2000 and December 2000 in 

Washington, D.C., in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. We provided a draft of this report to the Director of 

OMB for his review and comment. OMB officials said that they had no 

comments on the draft report. We also provided federal and state agency 

officials with the relevant draft report sections attributed to them to ensure 

that we correctly characterized their systems and comments.
Page 9 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Federal Agencies Used 

IT in Different Ways to 

Facilitate Regulatory 

Management

All of the federal agencies included in our review were using some form of 

IT to improve regulatory management and to meet legislative and executive 

branch mandates in this area. The applications that the agencies and others 

identified as innovative covered all of the dimensions of regulatory 

management that we examined, and most applications covered more than 

one dimension. Most of the applications involved using IT to improve 

traditional regulatory management approaches within their agencies. Other 

applications were more interactive in nature and appeared to change the 

nature of the relationship between regulatory agencies and the relevant 

public. A few of the applications attempted to address issues involving 

interagency or intergovernmental coordination. Although agency officials 

were able to identify perceived benefits for the innovations, few agencies 

had performance data clearly demonstrating the effect of the innovations 

on the agencies’ effectiveness or efficiency, burden reduction, or other 

regulatory outcomes. 

Most Innovative Federal IT 

Applications Attempted to 

Improve Traditional 

Regulatory Management 

Approaches

The innovative IT-based applications that attempted to improve traditional 

regulatory management approaches addressed several of the different 

dimensions of regulatory management—rulemaking, information 

collection, compliance assistance, information dissemination, and other 

compliance/enforcement actions. Many of these applications also had 

implications for burden reduction and/or improved transparency of the 

regulatory process. 

Rulemaking Several of the federal IT-based applications and initiatives that agency 

officials and others identified as innovative were attempting to improve the 

internal management of the rulemaking process. 
Page 10 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

• DOT’s Docket Management System (DMS) is an electronic, image-based 

database covering every agency and every rulemaking within the 

Department. A DOT official said that the DMS not only offered easier 

access to rulemaking materials to the public, but it also made it easier 

for DOT lawyers, analysts, managers, and others involved in the 

rulemaking to find the information they needed when they needed it. 

For example, they said agency professionals could review public 

comments on proposed rules at their desks or even from their homes as 

they develop final rules. As noted in our previous report, the DMS has 

become the official rulemaking record for the Department, enabling 

DOT to save more than $1 million each year in administrative costs.5

• USDA’s Risk Management Agency—the agency responsible for crop 

insurance programs—developed an Internet-based Regulatory 

Processing Management Tracking System that monitors proposed and 

final rules through all steps in the rulemaking process. The system 

permits agency employees and others to identify planned regulations 

and their estimated time frames, the status of rules being developed 

(including the number of days in each processing step), and the next 

steps required in the process. The system also has a forecasting feature 

that allows users to develop a list of process steps required for 

publication of rules and to calculate estimated dates of publication that 

are based on best and worst case scenarios. Other features are planned 

for the future, and other agencies within USDA have expressed interest 

in developing similar systems.

• DOT’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed an 

Internet-based Integrated Rulemaking Management Information System 

(IRMIS) to track the status of rulemaking projects, including their 

corresponding schedules and associated documents. IRMIS also 

provides users with access to other rulemaking-related systems, 

including DOT’s DMS; federal regulations; and the agency’s Regulatory 

Guidance Library.6

 DOT officials said the Department expects to 

implement a DOT-wide tracking system within a year that will interact 

with IRMIS and other agency tracking systems.

5

GAO/GGD-00-135R.

6

We have an ongoing study evaluating the FAA rulemaking process. An assessment of IRMIS 

will be included in a report scheduled for issuance later this year. 
Page 11 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Information Collection Several agencies have developed IT-based applications that involve the 

collection of information through some form of electronic reporting. Two 

agencies’ efforts in this area are particularly noteworthy—EPA and FDA. 

• EPA has established a central Office of Environmental Information 

(www.epa.gov/oei/) to coordinate the agency’s information collection 

and dissemination activities and to develop integrated, standardized 

collections of information (among other things). EPA is also taking a 

number of actions to make electronic reporting available to all regulated 

communities for all environmental compliance reports, including (1) 

developing electronic data interchange (EDI) standards; (2) developing 

user-friendly Web-based forms, which would be appropriate for 

electronic reporting by companies that are not EDI-capable; and (3) 

implementing a “central data exchange facility” to provide a single, onestop point of entry for data submitted to EPA. In addition, the agency is 

developing electronic reporting and recordkeeping best practices and 

implementation support to help state and local agencies accept 

electronic reports under EPA-delegated programs.7

 EPA does not yet 

have any data on the amount of burden actually reduced through the use 

of electronic reporting. However, on the basis of industry experience 

with electronic commerce, EPA officials estimated that these initiatives 

could ultimately reduce regulated entities’ paperwork time and costs by 

as much as 20 percent for a given entity, allow EPA and state and local 

agencies potentially to save millions of dollars in processing costs, and 

reduce data entry errors. 

• FDA’s Operational and Administrative System for Import Support is an 

automated system for processing and making admissibility 

determinations for shipments of foreign-origin, FDA-regulated products 

seeking to enter domestic commerce. Agency officials said that 

admissibility decisions are transmitted to importers’ agents within 

minutes after shipment data are electronically submitted to FDA, and 

that 85 percent of shipments are cleared without any submission of 

paper. Automated screening functions also reportedly enhance FDA’s 

ability to detect problems, thereby keeping certain products from 

7

For other views on EPA’s information initiatives, see Environmental Information: EPA 

Needs Better Information to Manage Risks and Measure Results (GAO-01-97T, Oct. 3, 2000); 

Managing for Results: EPA Faces Challenges in Developing Results-Oriented Performance 

Goals and Measures (GAO/RCED-00-77, Apr. 28, 2000); Environmental Information: EPA Is 

Taking Steps to Improve Information Management, but Challenges Remain (GAO/RCED-99-

261, Sept. 17, 1999); and environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 

21st Century, National Academy of Public Administration, November 2000. 
Page 12 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

entering the country. An FDA contractor estimated that the system 

would save the import industry $1.2 billion during a 7-year period, and 

FDA believes that the system will also improve the effectiveness and 

productivity of agency employees. This system has won a number of 

awards, including the CIO Council’s and Industry Advisory Council’s 

1998 Best IT Practices in the Federal Government and Government 

Executive magazine’s 1998 Government Technology Leadership Award.

• FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health has developed an 

Internet-based Mammography Program Reporting and Information 

System to support the agency’s statutorily mandated responsibility for 

certification and inspection of all mammography facilities in the United 

States. The system permits the electronic tracking and monitoring of a 

facility’s accreditation, certification, inspection, and compliance history. 

FDA and state inspectors use laptop computers to record inspection 

results and send the results to a centralized database, which is also used 

by FDA-approved accreditation bodies. The system allows access to 

data from all authorized user locations and was built to accommodate a 

variety of users’ computing environments.

• FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition’s Voluntary 

Cosmetics Registration System provides Internet-based access to a 

database that allows cosmetic companies to obtain a registration 

number and subsequently submit formulation information and 

ingredient lists to the center in a secure manner. FDA officials said that 

cosmetic companies are more willing to voluntarily register with the 

agency through the system because it reduces the amount of time the 

companies spend registering and submitting information. 

• FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research has designed and 

implemented an Electronic Regulatory Submission Review Program to 

support the required performance goals in the Prescription Drug User 

Fee Act and proposed international standards. The purpose of the 

program is to move from a largely paper-based, regulatory submission 

and review environment toward one that works with an all-electronic 

regulatory submission. Agency officials said that the program would 

enable the efficient receipt, viewing, storage, and archiving of electronic 

submissions, thereby allowing access to information from any 

reviewer’s desktop and automating analytical and administrative 

processes.

Compliance Assistance Compliance assistance has long been recognized as a way to reduce the 

burden associated with federal regulations, but those efforts have not 

always proved successful. In our 1996 report on federal regulatory burden, 

federal agencies said that several private sector companies we contacted 
Page 13 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

during our review had misstated or misinterpreted statutory or regulatory 

requirements, sometimes incurring unnecessary expenses.8

 Some of the 

companies told us that it was difficult to obtain clear compliance 

information from federal agencies. We observed in our report that the 

mechanisms agencies used to provide information on regulatory 

requirements appeared fragmented both between and within agencies, and 

that this fragmented approach may be contributing to ineffective 

communication between regulatory agencies and the business community. 

Some of the IT-based applications that agency officials and others 

identified as innovative during this review were intended to inform 

regulated entities of their responsibilities under applicable statutes and 

regulations. 

• EPA has partnered with industry associations, environmental groups, 

universities, and other government agencies to create 10 compliance 

assistance centers for specific sectors, many of which are heavily 

populated with small businesses and other small entities. (See 

www.assistancecenters.net.) Sectors served by the centers include 

agriculture, automotive services and repair, metal finishers, printing, 

transportation, local governments, and federal facilities. EPA manages 

two of the centers (agriculture and federal facilities), with the other 

eight managed by organizations outside of EPA. The centers offer a 

range of communication services, including Internet sites, E-mail 

groups, fax-back systems, and telephone assistance hotlines. 

Information provided through these mechanisms include plain-language 

compliance guides, updates on industry-specific regulatory 

developments, on-line access and search capabilities for state 

regulations, and training and satellite conferences. According to EPA, 

the centers were used more than 400,000 times by regulated entities and 

the public in fiscal year 2000, a 56-percent increase from fiscal year 

1999.

• DOL’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) offers 

electronic Compliance Assistance Tools (e-CAT) that help businesses 

identify workplace hazards in specific areas. They also provide safety 

and health information to help businesses address the identified 

hazards. (See www.osha-slc.gov/dts/osta/oshasoft/osha-advisors.) The 

six available e-CATs cover compliance requirements for baggage 

8

Regulatory Burden: Measurement Challenges and Concerns Raised by Selected 

Companies (GAO/GGD-97-2, Nov. 18, 1996).
Page 14 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

handling, nursing homes, the logging industry, respirator protection, 

silica protection, and lockout/tagout inspections. 

Information Dissemination Although all of the selected agencies had IT-based systems to provide 

information to the public, four EPA systems were particularly noteworthy. 

• “Envirofacts” (www.epa.gov/enviro/) is an Internet-based system that 

allows users to retrieve environmental information about different 

media and issues (e.g., air and water quality, hazardous wastes, and 

toxic releases) from several EPA databases. Envirofacts also includes 

(1) mapping programs that allow users to identify sources of pollution 

within the users’ community and (2) a Facility Registry System database 

that provides a single, integrated source of comprehensive information 

about particular facilities. Envirofacts has received numerous awards, 

including the Government Computer News Agency Excellence Award in 

2000 and the 1999 Government Technology Leadership Award.

• EPA’s Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) database 

(www.epa.gov/oeca/idea/) is a comprehensive source of environmental 

performance information on any EPA-regulated facility, retrieving data 

from across agency program offices. The database provides federal and 

state employees with facility-specific historical profiles of inspections, 

enforcement actions, penalties assessed, toxic chemicals released, and 

emergency hazardous spills. Public users can obtain access to certain 

information in the system by registering with EPA and paying for 

computing services. 

• EPA has also developed a separate but related Sector Facility Indexing 

Project (SFIP) database (www.epa.gov/oeca/sfi) to provide information 

from the IDEA database to the public in a more user-friendly and 

accessible manner. SFIP currently provides information about 

compliance and enforcement history, pollutant releases and spills, 

production capacities, and the demographics of the surrounding 

community for facilities in five industrial sectors: pulp mills, petroleum 

refining, automobile assembly, iron and steel, and primary nonferrous 

metals. EPA officials said they plan to expand the database to include 

federal facilities in the near future.

• EPA’s “AirNow” Program (www.epa.gov/airnow/) is a Web site that 

provides environmental information to the public through links to 

regional cameras that show air quality in various parts of the country. 

The site also provides public health information on the environmental 

effects of air pollution, featuring interactive ozone maps, air quality 

forecasts, and health advisories that help keep users informed about the 

air they breathe. The site won a Government Technology Leadership 
Page 15 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

award in 1998 and was selected by Government Executive magazine as 

one of the “Best Feds on the Web” for 2000.

Some Federal IT 

Applications Offered New 

Ways of Interacting With the 

Public

The applications previously discussed, although innovative in many 

respects, are not interactive or transactional in nature and generally do not 

represent significant departures from traditional regulatory management 

functions. On the other hand, a few of the applications that the agencies 

and others identified as innovative have gone beyond the traditional 

constructs and provide new forms of interaction with the public. 

DOL’s “Elaws” Advisors One such application is DOL’s set of Employment Laws Assistance for 

Workers and Small Businesses (elaws) advisors. (See 

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/.) Elaws is a set of interactive advisors that is 

available on the Internet to help workers and small businesses understand 

their rights and responsibilities under federal employment laws and 

regulations. Each advisor imitates the interaction that an individual might 

have with a DOL employment law expert, asking questions and providing 

answers that are based on the responses provided. For example, the 

Confined Spaces Advisor leads the user through a series of questions 

designed to determine whether a particular business is covered by the 

applicable regulations. Among other things, the advisor asks whether the 

space in question

• is large enough for a worker to enter bodily;

• is configured so that a worker can perform work inside;

• has a restricted entry or exit;

• is designed for continuous worker occupancy;

• has a hazardous atmosphere; and

• has a floor that slopes down to a narrower cross section.

At the end of this series of questions, the advisor informs the user whether 

OSHA considers the space in question to be a confined space, and whether 

a permit is required for its use. The advisor also directs the user to an 

overview of OSHA guidance on permit-required confined spaces.

The elaws advisors differ in the types of interactions they support. For 

example, the Posters Advisor not only allows business owners to identify 

any DOL-required posters their business must display, but also allows them 

to print the required posters. Other advisors help users fill out required 

forms and submit them electronically. As of November 2000, DOL had 

elaws advisors covering a variety of issues and DOL-administered statutes, 
Page 16 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

including the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 

1988, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. According to DOL, the various 

advisers were accessed more than 450,000 times during fiscal year 2000, 

and their use is increasing. 

OSHA’s Expert Advisors In addition to its on-line Fire Safety and Confined Spaces advisors as part 

of the DOL elaws system, OSHA also has a set of downloadable expert 

advisors.9

 These advisors run on personal computers and enable 

businesses and others to receive answers off-line on how OSHA regulations 

apply to their work sites. (See www.osha-slc.gov/dts/osta/oshasoft /.) An 

OSHA official said that off-line advisors allow users to input detailed 

information about their companies without privacy or enforcement 

concerns associated with on-line systems connected to the agency. The 

OSHA advisors include (1) a Hazard Awareness Advisor to identify hazards 

in general industry workplaces; (2) an Asbestos Advisor for building 

owners, managers, and others; and (3) a Lead in Construction Advisor to 

help clarify the coverage of OSHA’s rule, the use of exposure data, and 

other issues. In each of these advisors, users are interviewed about relevant 

issues; asked follow-up questions that are based on the answers previously 

provided; and, in most cases, provided a written report tailored to the 

circumstances described. In August 2000, the Ford Foundation and 

Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government named 

OSHA’s expert advisors as a finalist in the Innovations in American 

Government Award, which recognizes responsive and innovative 

government programs.

DOT’s “Do It Yourself” System Another interactive IT-based application used in federal regulatory 

management is DOT’s “Do It Yourself” (DIY) system. (See

http://diy.dot.gov.) The DIY system was developed by DOT’s finance office 

and permits regulated entities to file for required licenses and certifications 

and to make related payments using a credit card through a central DOT 

Web site or through the regulating agency’s Web site. DOT agencies using 

the DIY system as of November 2000 included, among others, (1) the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) (for registration 

applications, insurance payments, and fine payments); (2) the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (for import fee payments, technical 

information services payments, and Freedom of Information Act request 

payments); and (3) FAA (for aircraft registration and airman data). Users 

9

OSHA began developing expert systems to provide compliance assistance to small 

businesses before DOL initiated the elaws program in 1996. 
Page 17 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

are guided through a series of screens that ask for confirmation of 

transaction requests and address information. Built-in error messages in 

the on-line forms help users complete the forms correctly, thereby 

eliminating rework for both the users and the agency. The final screens 

take the user through the credit card part of the transaction and provide the 

user with a transaction number that can be used to track orders. DOT 

officials said that, in most cases, users should be able to complete the 

transactions in 10 minutes or less. The DIY system was designed to provide 

better service to customers, reduce paperwork, and introduce efficiencies 

into DOT’s operations, and agency officials said the system has already 

demonstrated its effectiveness. For example, they said the DIY system has 

helped FMCSA eliminate a 5-week backlog of applications from truckers 

wanting to engage in interstate hauling because staff no longer have to 

contact truckers about errors and no longer have to follow a series of steps 

to process the application and payment. 

A Few Applications 

Involved Interagency or 

Intergovernmental 

Cooperation

A few of the federal regulatory management innovations that the agencies 

or others identified involved interagency or intergovernmental 

cooperation—one EPA effort involving the states and separate efforts at 

DOT and FDA involving multiple federal agencies.

EPA’s National Environmental 

Information Exchange Network

EPA is working with the states to develop a “national environmental 

information exchange network” that the agency believes can improve both 

the quality and access to environmental data. The exchange network is a 

voluntary, standards-based system that links different state systems and 

EPA systems, using common language and secure connections through the 

Internet. In October 2000, a team comprising participants from EPA, 

individual states, and the Environmental Council of the States released a 

Blueprint for a National Environmental Information Exchange Network 

that lays out the network design and partnership agreements for 

implementing the network. Both federal and state officials consider 

coordination and cooperation between EPA and the states essential to 

successful implementation of the environmental electronic reporting 

initiative previously discussed. 

Government-wide International 

Trade Data System

DOT has been involved in an interagency effort to develop an Integrated 

Government-wide International Trade Data System (ITDS) that the 

developers hope will coordinate the collection, use, and dissemination of 

international trade information. When fully developed (in an estimated 5 to 

6 years), ITDS will be the public and interagency interface for all 
Page 18 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

international trade and transportation transactions for the movement of 

cargo in either direction across U.S. borders. ITDS goals include improving 

compliance with trade requirements; reducing burden on both the trade 

community and the government; and providing more accurate, timely, and 

thorough international trade data. According to system developers, ITDS 

will provide the primary inspector with “one look” at the truck, its goods, 

and the driver’s compliance with key federal requirements before the truck 

enters the United States. Truckers will electronically file transport 

declarations and goods declarations before arriving at the port of entry. 

ITDS will pass relevant data to the agency for selective screening and 

determination of appropriate action. In October 2000, DOT’s FMCSA 

agreed to participate in the first deployment of ITDS at the federal ports of 

entry in Buffalo, NY, in 2001. Also expected to participate in the Buffalo 

pilot are the Customs Service within the Department of Commerce, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service within the Department of Justice, 

FDA, and the trade and transportation communities.

Food Safety Initiative Ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply is the responsibility of an 

interlocking monitoring system that watches over food production and 

distribution at every level of government—local, state, and national. Given 

the complex set of food safety laws, regulations, and responsibilities, even 

obtaining information about which entity has responsibility for what task 

can be daunting.10 In 1997, the Clinton administration created a Food Safety 

Initiative to strengthen the fight against food-borne illnesses, which afflict 

between 6.5 million and 33 million Americans every year. The President 

directed the Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and HSS and 

the Administrator of EPA to identify ways to further improve the safety of 

the food supply. 

One outgrowth of the Food Safety Initiative has been the development of a 

gateway Web site (www.foodsafety.gov) that is maintained by the FDA’s 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. The site provides links to a 

wide range of information on food safety, including information on relevant 

laws, regulations, and enforcement responsibilities. Also included are links 

to dozens of federal, state, and local agencies involved in food safety and 

10See, for example, Food Safety: U.S. Needs a Single Agency to Administer a Unified, RiskBased Inspection System (GAO/T-RCED-99-256, Aug. 4, 1999) and Food Safety: Federal 

Efforts to Ensure the Safety of Imported Foods Are Inconsistent and Unreliable

(GAO/RCED-98-103, Apr. 30, 1998).
Page 19 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

buttons on the site’s home page that provide safety alerts and methods to 

report illnesses and product complaints. 

States Are Using IT to 

Facilitate Regulatory 

Management

A number of agencies in the state governments that we contacted were also 

using IT to facilitate regulatory management. The applications these state 

government organizations identified as innovative, like their federal 

counterparts, represented the range of regulatory management functions. 

Several of the state innovations were interactive systems that allowed 

regulated entities to identify their regulatory responsibilities and 

sometimes to complete the related transactions. One of the innovations 

was proactive, notifying users of opportunities to participate in rulemaking. 

States also used other less interactive or proactive IT-based applications to 

improve traditional management approaches.

Interactive IT Applications 

Help Regulated Entities 

Comply With State 

Requirements

Agencies in four of the states we contacted (Florida, Texas, Virginia, and 

the State of Washington) have developed IT-based regulatory management 

systems with extensive interactive capabilities. Most of these systems help 

regulated entities comply with state requirements. 

For example, Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has 

a “One-Stop Permit Registry” (OSPREY) allowing users to obtain 

information about all environmental permits administered by the 

department. (See http://osprey.dep.state.fl.us.) According to a DEP official, 

OSPREY was developed as a result of customer comments on how difficult 

it was to (1) identify the right DEP contact, (2) determine the appropriate 

permits that had to be filed, (3) determine where the permits had to be 

filed, and (4) identify the responsible officials for permit approval. To 

determine what permits a particular activity requires, users first select the 

Florida county in which the activity will be performed and then identify the 

type of activity involved (e.g., home building, construction of a boat launch, 

or road building). OSPREY then asks a series of questions, culminating in a 

“Consultation Summary” that lists applicable permit requirements and 

contact points and provides links to the application forms. The site also 

contains links to help users determine the fees associated with an 

application and a link to allow users to check on the status of a submitted 

application. Although the department has not developed any performance 

measures for the system, a DEP official said that customer feedback has 

been very positive. 
Page 20 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Another interactive state application is the Texas Railroad Commission’s 

Electronic Compliance and Approval Process (ECAP) system. (See 

http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/ecap.) ECAP streamlines regulatory 

requirements by implementing a totally paperless workflow that allows 

users to obtain oil or gas well permits on-line and captures, stores, and 

transmits oil or gas well permitting information electronically. The system 

encompasses all aspects of permit requirements, including 

security/authentication, fee collection, data reuse, and electronic 

transmission of required attachments. ECAP users can file the appropriate 

forms, pay the associated fees, and submit the required attachments online. Once the commission receives the information, it processes the forms 

and issues the permit. The industry information is stored by the system so 

that the user needs to enter facility data only once. 

The ECAP project is being implemented through a 3-phase pilot project 

that will provide the ability to electronically file, process, and approve a 

drilling permit application. According to commission officials, the first 

phase of the project has been completed and the second phase will soon be 

released. The last phase, scheduled for implementation in September 2001, 

includes data entry of a complex permit, complete integration with existing 

mainframe computer systems, comprehensive on-line permit approval, and 

concurrent update of its two database environments. Industry estimates 

that ECAP will save them between $3 million to $6 million annually for 

drilling permits alone. By 2005, when ECAP is expanded to include all 

permits and performance reports, commission officials estimate that the 

savings to industry will be over $17 million per year, and that the savings 

for the Railroad Commission could be up to $1 million per year.

A third example of an interactive state system is the Virginia Department of 

Motor Vehicle’s (DMV) Virtual Customer Service Center. (See 

http://www.dmv.state.va.us.) Through this system, users are able, among 

other things, to renew licenses and vehicle registrations on-line. A user’s 

information (including digital photographs) is stored within the system, 

thereby allowing on-line renewals. The Virtual Customer Service Center 

started by allowing customers to view the catalogue of over 150 different 

license plates. A customer was able to access the site and determine if a 

particular personalized message was still available and, if it was, to reserve 

that message for 90 days. To go further and allow customers to avoid 

waiting in line, the DMV was able to modify its IT architecture to support 

Internet-based applications. This involved reviewing the various activities 

performed by DMV personnel for the different functions and then writing a 

program that could emulate the various steps. As a result, the Virginia DMV 
Page 21 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

was able to provide many of the functions performed at the various 

customer service centers via the Internet.

The State of Washington’s Department of Labor and Industries has 

developed several IT-based “assistance network” systems that are 

interactive and facilitate compliance with state rules and regulations. Users 

can access these systems either through the department’s Web site 

(http://www.lni.wa.gov) or through a statewide portal called “Access 

Washington” (http://access.wa.gov), which links all state agencies and 

provides the public with a common access point to state government 

information and services. The department provides an assistance network 

that enables users to obtain regulatory information and complete 

transactions. For example, the systems (1) allow users to determine what 

labor-related rules are applicable to their operations, (2) provide computerbased training to help employers comply with various labor rules, and (3) 

offer a training management system to track whether employees are 

fulfilling training requirements. The department also maintains a database 

that the public can access to identify registered or certified contractors and 

to report unregistered contractors. The department is also implementing a 

site that will allow employers to pay industrial insurance premiums on-line. 

Officials plan to expand the site to include allowing employers to make 

other required payments.

Both the Departments of Ecology and Labor and Industries in the State of 

Washington have developed proactive systems that notify customers by Email of upcoming regulatory actions, including the publication of proposed 

rules, rulemaking hearings, the issuance of interpretive statements, and 

semiannual regulatory agenda updates. The departments’ goal in 

developing these systems was to provide the public with accurate, current, 

user-friendly, and timely information related to their rulemaking activities 

by informing users of new rules or revisions. According to a 1999 

Department of Ecology report, the public downloaded more than 3,000 

rules per month in its first year of operation, saving the department about 

$132,000 in printing and mailing costs.11

11Regulatory Review Progress Report, Department of Ecology, State of Washington (Oct. 

1999).
Page 22 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

States Also Use Less 

Interactive IT Applications

Some of the IT-based regulatory management applications that the states 

and others identified were less interactive or proactive, often focusing on 

providing regulatory information to the public. For example, the previously 

mentioned Virtual Customer Service Center in the State of Virginia also 

provides the public with information on a variety of topics—from licensing 

requirements to waiting times at customer service and telephone centers. 

Customers are also able to ask questions on-line and receive a response 

within the next business day. 

The State of Washington’s Departments of Ecology 

(http://www.ecy.wa.gov/) and Labor and Industry have also developed 

systems that facilitate the dissemination of information to the public. The 

Department of Ecology’s index of rules, regulations, and related documents 

is located at one Web site so users can “one-stop shop” for information. 

This index was created to give the public a crosswalk between the 

department’s various rules and publications. The Department of Labor and 

Industries also has an index of rules and regulations grouped by program 

area to provide the public with easier access to the information. 

Washington’s Department of Ecology is in the process of implementing an 

on-line comment site that will allow the public the opportunity to submit 

their comments electronically and have questions addressed by department 

personnel. Users wishing to comment on a proposed rule will be able to 

visit the department’s Web site and use an on-line form to submit written 

comments. This form will generate an explanatory statement that 

combines all comments and responses on a particular proposed rule. Userspecific information will be maintained by the system, thereby making it 

easier for an individual to comment multiple times on various rules and 

only submit personal information once.

Representatives of 

Nongovernmental 

Organizations 

Suggested Regulatory 

Management 

Improvements, 

Identified Concerns

Representatives from the nongovernmental organizations who participated 

in our review recognized and supported federal regulatory agencies’ 

current efforts to use IT to improve their regulatory management 

processes. However, the representatives also said that federal agencies 

could improve their performance in this area. Specifically, they suggested 

that agencies improve both the content and access to on-line information, 

more broadly and consistently use some existing applications, and adopt 

some new applications. The representatives also expressed concern that 

the use of IT-based applications in regulatory management could (1) make 

individuals and businesses more vulnerable to scrutiny and federal 
Page 23 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

enforcement actions and (2) disadvantage those individuals and businesses 

with limited technical resources.

Improve On-line 

Information/Access

The representatives of nongovernmental organizations affected by federal 

regulations recognized that federal agencies’ Web sites already provide 

regulated entities and others with a great deal of useful information. 

However, several of the representatives said that these sites vary 

considerably in terms of their format, content, and ease of navigability. 

They also said some sites provide a clear link on their home pages to 

regulatory information, but, in other sites, users must search for the same 

types of information. One of the representatives said that some agencies 

are not providing the public with some types of information that could be 

useful, and that the agencies could do more to disseminate that information 

electronically to the public and other agencies. 

Most of the representatives agreed that agencies should provide as much 

regulatory information as possible on-line, including information 

developed during the rulemaking process (e.g., economic analyses, hearing 

transcripts, and comments from the public) and other types of information 

(e.g., agencies’ agendas of upcoming regulatory actions). Several 

representatives specifically mentioned the DOT docket management 

system as a model that could be followed by other agencies. One 

representative suggested that OMB implement a DOT-type docket system 

itself and become the model or standard system that other agencies could 

emulate. 

Broader Use of Existing 

Applications

Several of the representatives suggested that other innovative regulatory 

management applications that certain agencies are beginning to implement 

also should be used more broadly. For example, several representatives 

suggested that more agencies allow the public to comment on proposed 

rules electronically and make all of the comments the agencies received on 

a proposed rule available on-line. One person said permitting electronic 

comments should allow the agencies to save money because fewer staff 

would be needed to handle the comments received. Other representatives 

suggested wider use of proactive electronic notification systems (e.g., list 

servers) to increase the dialog between regulated entities and the public 

and to encourage more people to get involved in regulatory issues. Another 

representative suggested that agencies make greater use of video 

technology and make their public hearings available, either live or on tape, 

through the agencies’ Web sites. According to the representative, this 
Page 24 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

approach would enable more people to participate in the process, 

particularly those who were in remote locations or otherwise unable to 

attend a public hearing on a rule in which they were interested. 

Use of New Applications Some of the applications that the representatives suggested do not, to our 

knowledge, currently exist. For example, one representative suggested that 

agencies could develop a “rule cost calculator” that would include all of the 

costs of complying with a rule. By entering pertinent information about its 

own business (e.g., type of business or number of employees), a regulated 

entity could calculate the potential cost of the proposed rule to its 

business. Others said that they would like to be able to go to one place and 

find out all applicable federal regulations. One representative said that this 

kind of one-stop shopping is particularly appealing to small businesses. 

Areas of Concern Although these representatives of affected communities generally 

encouraged agencies’ efforts to use IT in regulatory management, some 

also indicated that regulated entities are sometimes nervous about how an 

agency’s use of technology may affect them. For example, they said 

regulated entities are concerned that they may be opening themselves up to 

additional scrutiny and enforcement actions as a result of the electronic 

trail they might leave if they access or query a regulator’s Web site for 

information. They said this was of particular concern to regulated entities 

that must provide private or proprietary information about their business in 

order for the agency to electronically develop a list of applicable 

regulations. 

In addition, some of the representatives also expressed concerns about the 

“digital divide”—that is, differences within the regulated community in 

terms of their technological capabilities. One representative said that some 

regulated entities, particularly small businesses, do not have the latest 

technological equipment or the financial or staff resources available to take 

advantage of the IT-based applications that some of the agencies are 

developing. Therefore, the representative suggested that it would be best 

for agencies to make the use of IT for regulatory compliance purposes 

voluntary, and to continue to allow businesses to comply with regulations 

and obtain information using traditional approaches. 
Page 25 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Factors Facilitating the 

Development and 

Diffusion of Innovative 

IT-based Regulatory 

Management 

Approaches

Federal and state agency officials and representatives of nongovernmental 

organizations identified a number of factors that they believed affect the 

adoption and diffusion of IT-based approaches in regulatory management: 

(1) top-level leadership commitment/support, (2) adequate financial 

resources and human capital, (3) legislative and executive branch 

initiatives, (4) internal and external partnerships with critical stakeholders, 

(5) reengineering of existing business processes, and (6) the development 

of a communication infrastructure.

Top-Level Leadership 

Commitment/Support

Federal and state agency officials and staff said that the commitment and 

support of top-level leaders is critical to the successful development and 

implementation of IT-based systems to improve regulatory management. 

Federal officials said that leadership commitment is very important in 

overcoming resistance to changing the traditional ways that agencies 

conduct business. Officials in DOL said that projects could languish 

without commitment from the top. Therefore, before beginning to develop 

an elaws advisor in a new DOL agency, they require that the agency commit 

the resources—both dollars and people—to ensure successful 

development.

In some cases, the federal officials indicated that leadership support could 

be positively influenced by factors outside of the agencies. For example, 

several officials pointed to the importance of presidential initiatives (e.g., 

the Clinton administration’s E-gov initiative) and congressional mandates 

(e.g., GPEA) in focusing the agencies’ attention and in obtaining the 

commitment and resources needed to carry out initiatives. An HHS official 

said that leadership support can also be stimulated by a few pioneers in the 

agency who have a vision and can sell the idea to agency management. 

Some of the officials also indicated that leadership support can be 

engendered by success. For example, a DOT official said that obtaining 

early demonstrable savings helped obtain top-level support and widespread 

interest in the Department’s docket management system. On the other 

hand, federal officials also said that frequent changes in top agency 

leadership could make it difficult to sustain commitment to specific 

projects. Therefore, they said, agencies need to devise ways to get longterm commitment to proposed innovations that transcends changes in 

leadership. 

All of the state officials and staff that we interviewed also cited the support 

of top-level management as a key factor in their ability to develop and 
Page 26 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

implement innovative systems. State officials said that the support of 

department heads, state CIOs, and/or the states’ governors allowed them to 

consider new ways to address issues raised by customers and develop 

mechanisms to respond to their concerns. For example, officials in both 

the State of Washington and the Commonwealth of Virginia cited the 

enthusiastic support and leadership of their respective governors. In 

Washington, the governor issued an executive order directing all state 

agencies to develop and implement technological approaches to regulatory 

management.12 In Virginia, the governor made the application of technology 

to all governmental activities a priority. 

Adequate Financial 

Resources and Human 

Capital

Federal and state officials and staff also said that leadership commitment 

involves not only giving initiatives priority and visibility, but also 

committing appropriate financial resources and human capital to 

implement IT-based regulatory management applications. Federal officials 

said that the lack of adequate resources has been the biggest obstacle to 

implementing innovative IT-based approaches in their respective agencies. 

However, they recognized that agency leaders must allocate increasingly 

scarce resources among competing priorities both across programmatic 

areas and among IT initiatives. 

To resolve this issue, several federal officials said that top leadership 

commitment could help to forge partnerships among program areas and 

help to obtain the financial resources needed to implement new programs. 

For example, several program managers at EPA were able to use financial 

resources provided to the Office of Environmental Information to help 

develop and implement the agency’s electronic reporting initiative. Toplevel commitment can also help ensure that adequate human capital is 

invested in developing these IT-based approaches. One official in the State 

of Washington emphasized how important it was to the success of the 

project that leaders in the Department of Ecology dedicated the people that 

developers needed to complete their work. Without adequate human 

capital investment, the official said that the department would not have had 

the right mixture of skills necessary for the development of innovative 

applications to facilitate regulatory management.

12Governor’s Executive Order 97-02, Regulatory Improvement (Mar. 25, 1997).
Page 27 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Legislative and Executive 

Branch Initiatives 

Several of the federal and state officials said that legislative and executive 

branch IT initiatives had acted as catalysts in developing IT-based 

approaches to facilitate regulatory management. As previously mentioned, 

several of the federal officials that we contacted said that the passage of 

GPEA had helped them to obtain the top leadership commitment needed to 

support IT innovations in their agencies. They also said the legislation had 

helped the agencies develop clear schedules for moving toward the use of 

IT in regulatory management. OMB officials also said that GPEA had 

served as an impetus for developing new IT-based approaches to regulatory 

management. In the State of Washington, agency officials credited 

Executive Order 97-02 as the impetus for many of the IT-based 

developments occurring in state agencies. The executive order required all 

state agencies to review their reporting requirements. The goal of this 

review was to develop reporting requirements that are coordinated with 

other state agencies requiring similar information, that are economical and 

understandable, and that rely on the electronic transfer of information.

Internal and External 

Partnerships

Federal and state officials and staff said that creating appropriate 

partnerships—intra-agency, interagency, and/or public-private—was also 

critical in developing systems that facilitated regulatory management. They 

said that intra-agency partnerships helped the agencies eliminate internal 

“stovepipes” that were a barrier to developing and implementing innovative 

IT approaches. Federal officials particularly cited the need for internal 

partnerships between IT and program officials for successful development 

and implementation of IT projects. They said that developing IT-based 

management programs is often considered strictly an IT issue, and that 

program officials (in this case, regulatory officials) often do not get 

involved with developing those applications for their areas of 

responsibility. However, federal and state officials and staff said it is 

essential to involve the people familiar with current regulatory processes 

and issues in each stage of planning, developing, and implementing new IT 

applications in their areas of expertise. For example, DOL officials told us 

that a standard part of the development of a new elaws application is 

identifying and involving appropriate regulatory managers, subject matter 

experts, consultants, and lawyers who are knowledgeable about the 

program. Without this kind of partnership between IT and program office 

personnel, they said, agencies are likely to automate inefficient processes 

that will not meet new programmatic needs. 

Federal officials also cited the importance of external partnerships in 

developing and disseminating innovative regulatory management systems. 
Page 28 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

For example, in developing EPA’s electronic reporting initiative, the agency 

established partnerships with the states through the National Governors 

Association and the Environmental Council of States. As a result of these 

partnerships, EPA was able to leverage financial and human capital 

resources to develop the National Environmental Information Exchange 

Network. In addition, these partnerships helped ensure that all 

stakeholders shared information and provided input into the development 

of system requirements. Although agency officials said that the 

development of these partnerships had been a huge task, they believed that 

the final system would yield the results they expected—reduced regulatory 

burden and consistent data collection and analysis. 

State officials also emphasized the benefits of internal and external 

partnerships. In Florida, the Department of Environmental Protection 

formed a working group consisting of representatives from other 

departmental offices to assist in developing OSPREY. Virginia’s DMV was 

able to develop its system through the cooperation of other departmental 

officials who not only participated in the development process, but also 

played a key role in the testing and verification of the system before it was 

released to the public. Texas officials cited the importance of partnerships 

with the private sector. In Texas, state officials formed a public/private 

partnership with the regulated community as well as with the federal 

Department of Energy. Texas officials said that stakeholders’ participation 

in the developmental process ensured that (1) their issues were addressed 

and (2) that they would assume ownership and use of the system that was 

developed.

Reengineering of Existing 

Business Processes

Several of the federal and state agency officials said that comprehensive 

reengineering of their business processes before developing new systems 

enabled them to develop more innovative IT-based regulatory management 

processes. As a result of reengineering, they said they not only increased 

the efficiency of the selected processes but also eliminated processes that 

no longer made sense and introduced new ways of relating to the regulated 

community and the public. However, federal officials cautioned that 

reengineering their regulatory processes is not always possible because 

agencies may be legally prohibited from making substantive changes.13

Federal officials also said it is sometimes important to implement in 

segments, rather than undertaking “grand designs.” For example, DOL staff 

involved in the development of the elaws advisors emphasized the 

importance of modular development within their formal, structured 

development model. They said that developing and testing key pieces that 
Page 29 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

they showed to program management helped maintain support for the 

program. A DOT official also told us that developing the basic capability of 

the DMS and gradually adding new features and capabilities to meet 

additional needs as additional resources became available has worked for 

them. Also, some officials in Washington and Virginia said they believed it 

is better to seize opportunities and move ahead without substantive 

reengineering, particularly in developing interactive Internet-based 

applications. As one official said, “it is better to beg for forgiveness than to 

ask for permission.”

Communication 

Infrastructure

State officials also indicated that a well-developed communication 

infrastructure was important to facilitate the adoption and diffusion of 

these innovative regulatory management systems. In some cases, the 

governors in those states were critical to the establishment of that 

infrastructure. For example, the Governor of the State of Washington 

created a Subcabinet on Management Improvement and Results that was 

charged with the responsibility of overseeing the regulatory process and 

ensuring that the state government “pursues a fair, effective, and sensible 

regulatory strategy.” The subcabinet’s responsibilities included making 

recommendations for statutory, administrative, and organizational changes 

as well as special projects that result in regulatory improvements in state 

government. In Virginia, the governor appointed a Secretary of Technology 

who presides as chairman of the governor’s Council on Technology 

Services. The council consists of 23 representatives from state and local 

government agencies and institutions and is charged with implementing 

electronic government in various areas, such as procurement, services, 

communications, and computing architecture, and coordinating 

technologies-based systems at all levels of government. The governor of 

Florida established a similar type of interagency working group that 

facilitated information sharing and served as a catalyst for partnerships 

between respective state agencies. 

State officials said that the availability of organizations that serve as 

clearinghouses of information about technological applications in other 

13As we noted in Regulatory Burden: Some Agencies’ Claims Regarding Lack of 

Rulemaking Discretion Have Merit (GAO/GGD-99-20, Jan. 8, 1999), statutory provisions 

underlying regulations often give rulemaking agencies little or no discretion in how they can 

develop regulations. For example, we reported that EPA has no discretion to consider cost 

or available treatment technologies in developing water quality criteria pursuant to the 

Clean Water Act. 
Page 30 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

states helped in not only developing their own systems, but also in 

disseminating information about their systems to other states. Officials 

cited several organizations, such as the National Association of State 

Information Resource Executives, the National Association of State Chief 

Administrators, the National Governors Association, and the 

Environmental Council of States, for having served as information conduits 

among states. They said these organizations sponsor conferences, 

newsletters, and databases that members may use as mechanisms to 

inform other entities about the development of systems to address various 

regulatory management requirements. State officials also said that 

involving segments of the regulated community provided valuable insights 

to the process and ensured stakeholder ownership of the resulting system. 

Officials in Texas, Washington, and Florida said their states had involved 

members of the regulated community during the development of their 

systems, and, in each case, the states benefited from the collaboration. In 

Texas, the oil and gas industries not only provided input into the 

development process but were also a valuable funding source for the 

system. In Washington and Florida, members of the regulated community 

participated in developing the system requirements. This participation in 

the development process facilitated the implementation of the system since 

this key group of stakeholders perceived themselves as part of the system, 

not as having the system imposed on them. 

Federal Agencies Suggested 

Improvements in 

Communication About 

Innovations

Federal regulatory officials and staff said they were aware of some, but not 

all, of the IT-based applications that other agencies, or even other offices 

within their own agencies, were using to improve regulatory management. 

They said that most of their knowledge about other agencies’ practices 

came about through ad hoc and informal mechanisms, such as brown-bag 

lunches by career officials assisting the Regulatory Working Group and 

meetings sponsored by GAO and others. They told us that there was a need 

for some type of communication infrastructure to promote more consistent 

and structured sharing of information about IT innovations to facilitate the 

diffusion of those innovations across agencies. They said that a new 

organization was not needed, and that they preferred to use existing groups 

to share information. 

Several federal agency officials also recommended greater use of IT to 

assist in disseminating information on what other agencies are doing. Some 

thought that there should be a governmentwide portal focused on 

regulatory issues or a section of a portal, such as FirstGov, that would be a 

single point of entry for regulatory agencies as well as the public. One 

official suggested that there should be an inventory of best practices in the 
Page 31 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

use of IT in federal regulatory management available on-line. There was 

widespread interest among federal officials and staff in several types of 

best practices, including electronic dockets, new options for developing 

and implementing electronic reporting, and certain interactive models that 

enable agencies to change the way they interact with the public. Federal 

officials also said that OMB needed to play a role in facilitating 

communication regarding this issue. For example, one agency official 

suggested that OMB devote one meeting each year to discussing innovative 

applications of IT in regulatory management.

OMB officials noted that the electronic government committee of the CIO 

Council has more than 1,000 best practices in its inventory of innovative IT 

applications, and that this information would be available on the Internet 

soon. Although regulatory management applications are not separately 

identified, these applications could be highlighted for use in regulatory 

management. The OMB officials also noted that the agency had taken a 

number of steps to encourage the use of IT in regulatory management, and 

that the CIO Council and the National Association of State Information 

Resource Executives were setting up a working structure for continuing 

discussion of IT issues between state and federal agencies. Nevertheless, 

they recognized that more could be done to improve communications 

among the agencies. For example, they said OMB could encourage 

interagency forums on the topic of IT in regulatory management and could 

highlight regulatory issues as part of the agency’s oversight of the 

implementation of GPEA. 

Conclusions Federal and state regulatory agencies are already making extensive use of 

IT to address traditional regulatory problems and improve regulatory 

management. However, they are just beginning to realize the full 

capabilities of IT and the Internet to develop interactive regulatory 

management practices and facilitate interagency and intergovernmental 

uses. Our work during this review and during our review last year indicates 

that innovative IT-based approaches to regulatory management have the 

potential to increase the amount and quality of public participation in 

rulemaking, increase regulatory transparency, reduce burden on regulated 

entities and help them understand their responsibilities, save regulatory 

agencies money, and improve the quality of agencies’ regulatory programs. 

Most of the agencies that we contacted cited benefits of their innovative IT 

applications, although few had performance data yet that clearly 

demonstrated the effect of the innovations on the agencies’ efficiency or 

effectiveness, burden reduction, or other regulatory management 
Page 32 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

outcomes. Such performance data would be useful as other agencies try to 

decide which IT-based applications to adopt or adapt in their own agencies.

A key factor in encouraging greater use of IT-based innovations in 

regulatory management is, ironically, information. Officials in federal 

regulatory agencies were sometimes unaware of the innovative uses of IT 

to improve regulatory management in other agencies, and sometimes in 

other parts of their own agencies. As a result, federal agencies may either 

not adopt innovative approaches that could be useful to them or reinvent 

the wheel as they develop their own approaches in those areas. Federal 

regulatory agency officials told us that there is a need for better 

communication and sharing of information about innovative IT 

applications and indicated that existing organizations, such as the CIO 

Council and the Regulatory Working Group, be used to facilitate 

information sharing. 

Representatives of the nongovernmental organizations and officials and 

staff in the regulatory agencies themselves also called for greater 

consistency across agencies’ IT-based regulatory management systems. 

However, both parties cautioned against mandatory conformity. As agency 

officials told us during our first review, agencies may need to have 

somewhat different systems because of differences in their operating 

environments. Also, common IT-based approaches may be more 

appropriate for some aspects of regulatory management than others. For 

example, federal rulemaking processes are somewhat similar across 

federal agencies, so common approaches regarding that aspect of 

regulatory management may be more appropriate than in other, more 

idiosyncratic parts of the process (e.g., enforcement or licensing 

requirements.) Specific options in the rulemaking area could include 

common approaches for accepting electronic comments on proposed 

rules, similarly structured electronic docketing systems, and tracking 

systems that allow agencies to understand the causes of delays in their 

rulemaking processes. Compliance assistance functions similar to DOL’s 

elaws and OSHA’s expert advisor programs appear to have broad 

applicability.

OIRA is responsible for providing guidance and oversight for both IT and 

regulatory issues. The OIRA Administrator sits on the CIO Council, which 

Executive Order 13011 says should allow agencies to “share experiences, 

ideas, and promising practices.” The OIRA Administrator chairs the 

Regulatory Working Group, which Executive Order 12866 says “shall serve 

as a forum to assist agencies in identifying and analyzing important 
Page 33 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

regulatory issues,” including “the development of innovative regulatory 

techniques.” Although OIRA has taken some steps to encourage the use of 

IT in regulatory agencies, we believe that it could do more to encourage 

information sharing among the agencies on IT innovations. For example, 

OIRA could encourage additional forums on the use of IT in regulatory 

management, devote a portion of its Web site to innovative IT applications, 

or work with the CIO Council to encourage dialogue between the 

regulatory and IT elements of agencies’ workforces. It could also make the 

use of IT in regulatory management a specific focus in its implementation 

of GPEA. We also believe that OIRA can work with the agencies to identify 

specific types of innovative IT-based approaches that multiple agencies 

could use to improve regulatory management. By implementing common 

approaches regarding regulatory functions that are used in multiple 

agencies, the regulatory management approaches can begin to have a more 

consistent “look and feel,” which some nongovernmental and federal 

representatives believed is needed.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

We recommend that the OIRA Administrator develop a systematic process 

by which federal agencies can share information regarding the use of 

innovative IT-based applications in regulatory management. We also 

recommend that the Administrator work with federal agencies to identify 

types of innovative IT-based approaches that multiple agencies could use to 

improve regulatory management.

Agency Comments On December 20, 2000, we sent a draft of this report to the Director of OMB 

for his review and comment. OMB officials told us that OMB had no 

comments on the draft report. We also provided federal and state agency 

officials with the relevant draft report sections attributed to them to ensure 

that we correctly characterized their systems and comments. These 

officials provided several technical corrections, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

As we arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce this 

report’s contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days 

after the date of this letter. We will then send copies to Representative Dan 

Burton, Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform. We will 

also provide copies to the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director, 

OMB; the Honorable Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture; the 
Page 34 GAO-01-232 Technology-Based Regulatory Innovations

Honorable Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services; 

the Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor; the Honorable Norman Y. 

Mineta, Secretary of Transportation; and the Honorable Christine Todd 

Whitman, Administrator, EPA. We will also make copies available to others 

and post this report on GAO’s home page at www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me or Curtis 

Copeland on (202) 512-6806. Key contributors to this assignment were 

Elizabeth Powell, Joseph Santiago, and Ellen Grady. 

Carlotta C. Joyner

Director, Strategic Issues

(410582) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00